Antibody and T cell responses to Sinopharm/BBIBP-CorV in naïve and previously infected individuals in Sri Lanka

  1. Chandima Jeewandara
  2. Inoka Sepali Aberathna
  3. Pradeep Darshana Pushpakumara
  4. Achala Kamaladasa
  5. Dinuka Guruge
  6. Deshni Jayathilaka
  7. Banuri Gunasekara
  8. Shyrar Tanussiya
  9. Heshan Kuruppu
  10. Thushali Ranasinghe
  11. Shashika Dayarathne
  12. Osanda Dissanayake
  13. Nayanathara Gamalath
  14. Dinithi Ekanayake
  15. MPDJ Jayamali
  16. Ayesha Wijesinghe
  17. Madushika Dissanayake
  18. Deshan Madusanka
  19. Tibutius Thanesh Jayadas
  20. Anushika Mudunkotuwa
  21. Gayasha Somathilake
  22. Michel Harvie
  23. Thashmi Nimasha
  24. Saubhagya Danasekara
  25. Ruwan Wijayamuni
  26. Lisa Schimanski
  27. Tiong K. Tan
  28. Tao Dong
  29. Alain Townsend
  30. Graham S. Ogg
  31. Gathsaurie Neelika Malavige

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Background

As there are limited data of the immunogenicity of the Sinopharm/BBIBP-CorV in different populations, antibody responses against different SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and T cell responses, we investigated the immunogenicity of the vaccine, in individuals in Sri Lanka.

Methods

SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies were measured in 282 individuals who were seronegative at baseline, and ACE2 receptor blocking antibodies, antibodies to the receptor binding domain (RBD) of the wild type (WT), B.1.1.7, B.1.351 and B.1.617.2, ex vivo and cultured IFNγ ELISpot assays, intracellular cytokine secretion assays and B cell ELISpot assays were carried out in a sub cohort of the vaccinees at 4 weeks and at 6 weeks (2 weeks after the second dose).

Results

95% of the vaccinees seroconverted, although the seroconversion rates were significantly lower (p<0.001) in individuals >60 years (93.3%) compared to those who were 20 to 39 years (98.9%). 81.25% had ACE2 receptor blocking antibodies at 6 weeks, and there was no difference in these antibody titres in vaccine sera compared to convalescent sera (p=0.44). Vaccinees had significantly less (p<0.0001) antibodies to the RBD of WT and B.1.1.7, although there was no difference in antibodies to the RBD of B.1.351 and B.1.617.2 compared to convalescent sera. 27.7% of 46.4% of vaccinees had ex vivo IFNγ and cultured ELISpot responses respectively, and IFNγ and CD107a responses were detected by flow cytometry.

Conclusions

Sinopharm/BBIBP-CorV appeared to induce high seroconversion rates and induce a similar level of antibody responses against ACE2 receptor, B.1.617.2 and B.1.351 as seen following natural infection.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.07.15.21260621: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsConsent: Study participants: 323 individuals above the age of 21 years, who were vaccinated in Colombo, Sri Lanka, were included in the study following informed written consent.
    IRB: Ethics approval was obtained from the Ethics Review Committee of the University of Sri Jayewardenepura.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Antibodies
    SentencesResources
    Detection of SARS-CoV-2 specific antibodies: Seroconversion rates to the BBIBP-CorV vaccine were determined by using the Wantai SARS-CoV-2 Ab ELISA (Beijing Wantai Biological Pharmacy Enterprise, China), which detects IgM, IgG and IgA antibodies to the receptor binding domain (RBD) of the SARS-CoV-2.
    IgA
    suggested: None
    All experiments were carried out in duplicate and anti-human IgG monoclonal capture antibodies, was used as a positive control, and media alone as a negative control.
    anti-human IgG
    suggested: None
    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Statistical analysis: The percentage calculations for the analysis were conducted in Microsoft Excel and the 95% confidence intervals for each category were calculated using the R software (version 4.0.3) and R-studio (version 1.4.1106).
    Microsoft Excel
    suggested: (Microsoft Excel, RRID:SCR_016137)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a protocol registration statement.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2021.07.15.21260621v1 on medRxiv